MC3-bacterial

Marsh Creek Site 3  Bacterial Along with testing for physical and chemical parameters, bacterial testing was also conducted. While on location, whirl-packs were collected at the same location using sterile techniques. These packs were then brought back to the lab where the samples were cultured in order to ascertain whether (and how much) bacteria existed in the waters. A control plate was also cultured at the time, using distilled water, in order to maintain the validity of the experiment.
 * __Overview__**

__**Data Collected**__

Our first day of testing proved to have the highest numbers of coliform bacteria present, possibly due to the heavy intermittent rainfall the day prior to the samples being collected. Runoff from the surrounding area and from further upstream can play a role in the amount of coliform found. Plates 1 and 3 show the same amount of bacteria present. Plate 2 showed a significant difference in bacterial counts when compared to plates 1 and 3. While plate 2 could possibly indicate a problem, it is unknown whether or not it was a fluke. Testing and/or counting error may have attributed to the second plates uneven coliform bacteria counted.
 * [[image:watershed2012/MC3june17b width="276" height="271" caption="17June2012"]] || [[image:watershed2012/MC3june17c width="267" height="267" caption="17June2012"]] || [[image:watershed2012/MC3june17a width="317" height="270" caption="17June2012"]] ||

While initially examining the plates from June 21, the bacterial levels indicate an acceptable range of bacteria present. However, it must be noted that our blank plate did have a coliform colony present. This negates the results from June 21 as the environment was not sterile and thus might have altered the results of the remaining plates.
 * [[image:watershed2012/MC3a width="312" height="345" caption="21June2012"]] || [[image:watershed2012/MC3b width="262" height="338" caption="21June2012"]] || [[image:watershed2012/MC3c width="288" height="338" caption="21June2012"]] ||

On day 3 of testing, extra precaution was taken in order to ensure a sterile environment. Despite the negated results from June 21, evidence from June 28 show that levels have dropped in comparison to day one of testing. This is without a doubt due to the lack of rainfall and thus lack of runoff.
 * [[image:watershed2012/28JuneMC1.JPG width="284" height="302" caption="28June2012"]] || [[image:watershed2012/28JuneMC2.JPG width="307" height="302" caption="28June2012"]] || [[image:watershed2012/28juneMC3.JPG width="310" height="306" caption="28June2012"]] ||



__**Results**__ Our results indicate that the E.coli levels within our specific watershed were within acceptable range. While these tests can be inconclusive to a point,due to testing and counting errors, they give a good picture of what protection a private home and historic site can offer. It also must be noted that with the rain the levels were elevated. This can be attributed to runoff from upstream of the site as well as the surrounding areas.

Watershed level bacterial data from all sites can be found here.

Overview Map Stream Water Bacterial Urban Ecology Conclusion Home Page